Cramer was right

or Register to post new content in the forum

10 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Nov 24, 2008 9:24 am

Anyone who sold as he instructed is very pleased today, relatively speaking. That was 30% ago.

Nov 24, 2008 10:47 am

Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn occasionally.

Nov 25, 2008 12:43 pm

Yeah and two months before that, he was pounding the table and calling the bottom.  He's wrong every bit as often as he's right.  Someone not terribly long ago did a study of the returns on his recommendations and they S-U-C-K-E-D.

 
Anyone still have that link?
Nov 25, 2008 4:29 pm

excellent, ice.

Nov 25, 2008 5:22 pm

The difference is that active money managers have a purpose for investing in what they do.  They're investing for rising dividends or looking for large cap growth.  Cramer isn't working toward one specific style. 

 
Perhaps you are confusing Cramer's "active money management" with entertainment.  I watch TV to figure out how to kill someone and not leave any evidence behind for the CSIs to find.  I don't watch TV to figure out how to build my stock portfolio.  I read magazines for that.   
Nov 26, 2008 10:39 pm

If i still had Am Fds in my book I would be bummed. The fds did well due to Intl doing well, and now intl is a horrid asset class (short term) and those so-called "domestic" stock fds are hurtin'. let's just agree to disagree: I think there is no way that the active expenses are worth it. you disagree-fine. I agree Cramer is strictly for laughs (and he knows it-all the way to the bank).

 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122618844677811355.html
 
Nov 27, 2008 12:45 am
newnew:

If i still had Am Fds in my book I would be bummed. The fds did well due to Intl doing well, and now intl is a horrid asset class (short term) and those so-called "domestic" stock fds are hurtin'. let's just agree to disagree: I think there is no way that the active expenses are worth it. you disagree-fine. I agree Cramer is strictly for laughs (and he knows it-all the way to the bank).

 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122618844677811355.html
 



Cool, no reason to hire you then....or do you work for free...cause I can buy an index fund, why pay for advice or active mgmt...right

Nov 27, 2008 2:20 pm

you pay me to learn that mutual funds have their place, but let's get real about how many are actually worth it (few-mostly in bonds or no-loads or specialty areas with less efficiency). you pay me to give you exposure to asset classes in a variety of ways, not just show you some managers past performance (anyone can research that on their own too). you ESPECIALLY pay me to make sure that 70-100% of your port is not with the same fund family!

Dec 3, 2008 1:02 pm

Cramer must be off his bipolar pills:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/28017109



It makes me wonder why I'm still doing this.  Weathermen and the media (talking heads, etc.) get paid just as much when they are right as when they are wrong. 
Dec 3, 2008 1:28 pm

CEO's get more - no matter what.